I origianally created a thread on determinism but it has brought everything in but the kitchen sink. I am here to state with absolute knowledge and conviction that man’s will is not free. I have not been able to show the amazing knowledge that hides behind this door. I am not here to debate. I am here to explain. People can agree or not agree but I am not going to defend what I know to be true mathematically, scientifically, and undeniably!

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

But Peaceworld I totally agree with You, and the reason on a reduced level appears to be based on a difference that notes a variable state of mind which perceives the difference as res cogitans vs. Res percipio.

The perception of a plethora of choices and the unvarifiability of the outcome of only one resulting choice.The result is not always the best choice, it may even be the worst, however in situ, it is the only possible one, contextually reduced.

There is a synthetic unity between a cognitive synthetic possibility , and a synthetic perceptual certainty. Cohesion necessitates constant evaluation backwards and forwards in a calculus of fed back continuum : like looking back positively or, negatively into the choices which contributes to the path through which the route was chosen as a perceived unity of continuum.

This is the trouble. The choices made along the way appear only continuous, not only in a backward sense of regret, but also, in the sense of.progressingly going forward.

It is not continuous, it is by leaps and bounds, which functionally are not perceived. Its just that reductively back wards the indifference is based on the will's desire to return to the basic assumption in congruence with the identity of indiscernables..

Freedom implies a lack of restriction or restraint in choice of using ones will which is not the case as we are limited on multiple levels of what we may choose and why we may choose it. We are bound to environment and a state of duality in everything, this being bound is what goes against will being completely free.

By "free" will I would automatically assume; Will is free, only to its limited available choices.

I do not have concrete evidence but only through correlation of what seems reasonable and logical. We have Archetypes inside of us that never cease to exist but only may be effectively managed or the lessening of influence upon ego through becoming conscious of the unconscious. I personally believe these archetypes tie into other planets, sun, moon and solar system(astrology), I believe they may have energies, vibrations and frequency all on their own as everything does that effect us as conscious individuals based on time of birth and through further planetary movement when one is alive. This would be an unconscious physical force in which is restricting as well as the unconscious restrictions we already face to completely shape self, to shape self one must remember or learn first in what they wish to represent and it them, if this is not done then one lives their life as a collection of exterior idealogy without even realizing or understanding their ego has become indoctrinated by such.

It shows as easy as day that will is not completely free, so why bother saying "free will" at all. All one has is their heart and their will, do not let them be tainted.

A "god" who deserves worship will be humble enough to reject it; A "god" who demands worship will not be worthy of it.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Meno_ wrote:But Peaceworld I totally agree with You, and the reason on a reduced level appears to be based on a difference that notes a variable state of mind which perceives the difference as res cogitans vs. Res percipio.

The perception of a plethora of choices and the unvarifiability of the outcome of only one resulting choice.The result is not always the best choice, it may even be the worst, however in situ, it is the only possible one, contextually reduced.

There is a synthetic unity between a cognitive synthetic possibility , and a synthetic perceptual certainty. Cohesion necessitates constant evaluation backwards and forwards in a calculus of fed back continuum : like looking back positively or, negatively into the choices which contributes to the path through which the route was chosen as a perceived unity of continuum.

This is the trouble. The choices made along the way appear only continuous, not only in a backward sense of regret, but also, in the sense of.progressingly going forward.

It is not continuous, it is by leaps and bounds, which functionally are not perceived. Its just that reductively back wards the indifference is based on the will's desire to return to the basic assumption in congruence with the identity of indiscernables..

Of course we have a sense of regret at times. of course there is a looking back in order to make a better choice the next time a similar situation presents itself. No one is disputing this meno. This does not do anything to nullify the accurate definition of determinism that I gave. I changed the topic name because we're stuck on the definition. I need people to presume temporarily that man does not have free will, so we can progress.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

Meno_ wrote:But Peaceworld I totally agree with You, and the reason on a reduced level appears to be based on a difference that notes a variable state of mind which perceives the difference as res cogitans vs. Res percipio.

The perception of a plethora of choices and the unvarifiability of the outcome of only one resulting choice.The result is not always the best choice, it may even be the worst, however in situ, it is the only possible one, contextually reduced.

There is a synthetic unity between a cognitive synthetic possibility , and a synthetic perceptual certainty. Cohesion necessitates constant evaluation backwards and forwards in a calculus of fed back continuum : like looking back positively or, negatively into the choices which contributes to the path through which the route was chosen as a perceived unity of continuum.

This is the trouble. The choices made along the way appear only continuous, not only in a backward sense of regret, but also, in the sense of.progressingly going forward.

It is not continuous, it is by leaps and bounds, which functionally are not perceived. Its just that reductively back wards the indifference is based on the will's desire to return to the basic assumption in congruence with the identity of indiscernables..

Of course we have a sense of regret at times. of course there is a looking back in order to make a better choice the next time a similar situation presents itself. No one is disputing this meno. This does not do anything to nullify the accurate definition of determinism that I gave. I changed the topic name because we're stuck on the definition. I need people to presume temporarily that man does not have free will, so we can progress.

Exactly, and getting away from merely attempts to establish this definitely, has been insufficient, according to Your own perception of the futility of ever recurring blocks in attaining clarity.

Therefore, the reductive requirement toward distinguishing a difference which has been overlooked. And that difference is mirror imaged within more generally set processes: such as occurs in entropy.

Meno_ wrote:But Peaceworld I totally agree with You, and the reason on a reduced level appears to be based on a difference that notes a variable state of mind which perceives the difference as res cogitans vs. Res percipio.

The perception of a plethora of choices and the unvarifiability of the outcome of only one resulting choice.The result is not always the best choice, it may even be the worst, however in situ, it is the only possible one, contextually reduced.

It is the best choice at the moment it was made by the person who made it regardless of his state of mind (i.e., cogitans vs. Res percipio). He is compelled to choose always what he considers better for himself, rendering any other choice an impossibility at that moment. Free choice therefore is an illusion. That does not mean looking back in hindsight it was the best choice because now he has more information upon which to make a more profitable choice based on the factors unique to him personally.

Meno_ wrote:There is a synthetic unity between a cognitive synthetic possibility , and a synthetic perceptual certainty. Cohesion necessitates constant evaluation backwards and forwards in a calculus of fed back continuum : like looking back positively or, negatively into the choices which contributes to the path through which the route was chosen as a perceived unity of continuum.

This is the trouble. The choices made along the way appear only continuous, not only in a backward sense of regret, but also, in the sense of.progressingly going forward.

It is not continuous, it is by leaps and bounds, which functionally are not perceived. Its just that reductively back wards the indifference is based on the will's desire to return to the basic assumption in congruence with the identity of indiscernables..

Of course we have a sense of regret at times. Of course there is a looking back in order to make a better choice the next time a similar situation presents itself. No one is disputing this meno. This does not do anything to nullify the accurate definition of determinism that I gave. I changed the topic name because we're stuck on the definition. I need people to presume temporarily that man does not have free will, so we can progress.

Meno_ wrote:Exactly, and getting away from merely attempts to establish this definitely, has been insufficient, according to Your own perception of the futility of ever recurring blocks in attaining clarity.

Ever recurring blocks? What are you talking about Meno? You are making all kinds of assumptions that don't belong. All I am establishing is that we can only choose one alternative whenever we are choosing between MEANINGFUL differences. Show me where this is false. You are trying hard to prove this author wrong, but he wasn't wrong so you can't do it. Your reasoning in an effort to prove that my definition is insufficient is completely flawed.

Meno_ wrote:Therefore, the reductive requirement toward distinguishing a difference which has been overlooked. And that difference is mirror imaged within more generally set processes: such as occurs in entropy.

There is no difference that has been overlooked. Sometimes we look back and sometimes we don't when making a decision. There is nothing reductionistic about this definition. There is no disorder or entropy by saying that when making a choice, it could only be that choice because we are compelled to move in the direction of what gives us greater satisfaction or preference. Prove to me that you can move in the direction of dissatisfaction (or lesser satisfaction) when a more preferable choice is available to you. That's the only way we will be able to stay on track. Just to remind you: this is an invariable law of our nature whether it was during prehistoric times or modern times. Natural laws don't change with time, although the environment changes with time.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

Artimas wrote:Freedom implies a lack of restriction or restraint in choice of using ones will which is not the case as we are limited on multiple levels of what we may choose and why we may choose it. We are bound to environment and a state of duality in everything, this being bound is what goes against will being completely free.

By "free" will I would automatically assume; Will is free, only to its limited available choices.

That is a superficial definition of "free" will. To the extent we have available choices at our disposal does not grant us libertarian free will. It just means we have more options on the table. Yes, we have more freedom to move about, to do more things in life, but you are conflating two different definitions of "free". Throughout the book, Decline and Fall of All Evil, the author uses the phrase: "I was compelled of my own free will" to mean "I was compelled of my own desire" which is not a contradiction if you understand how the terms are being used. Similarly, using the word "free" to mean more options does not mean we have freedom of the will. We have to define words clearly in order to communicate effectively.

Artimas wrote:I do not have concrete evidence but only through correlation of what seems reasonable and logical. We have Archetypes inside of us that never cease to exist but only may be effectively managed or the lessening of influence upon ego through becoming conscious of the unconscious. I personally believe these archetypes tie into other planets, sun, moon and solar system(astrology), I believe they may have energies, vibrations and frequency all on their own as everything does that effect us as conscious individuals based on time of birth and through further planetary movement when one is alive. This would be an unconscious physical force in which is restricting as well as the unconscious restrictions we already face to completely shape self, to shape self one must remember or learn first in what they wish to represent and it them, if this is not done then one lives their life as a collection of exterior idealogy without even realizing or understanding their ego has become indoctrinated by such.

It shows as easy as day that will is not completely free, so why bother saying "free will" at all. All one has is their heart and their will, do not let them be tainted.

We are all limited by our environment, our income, our knowledge, our heredity, our culture, our predispositions, our subconscious desires and fears, etc. Regardless of the reasons for the choice, it was never a free one because we are compelled, based on all of the above which include the options available at that moment in time, to move in the direction of greater preference or satisfaction. It is impossible to move in any other direction, which means once the choice is made, it was the only choice that could ever have been made. IOW, we would get the same result if we were able to rewind the clock and repeat the same instance before making the choice.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

peacegirl wrote: People can agree or not agree but I am not going to defend what I know to be true mathematically, scientifically, and undeniably!

This is the part I always latch on to. It reflects what I construe to be the "objectivist mentality". And it can be in reference to all sorts of things.

But mostly two:

1] moral and political values2] assessments of questions like this

Folks here just know that what they believe is true. And it has to be true [for them] because [mentally, emotionally and psychologically] they have already invested so much of their own rendition of "I" in it.

I encompassed this frame of mind in what I call the "psychology of objectivism":

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".

On the other hand, I have no capacity whatsoever to demonstrate that what others claim to know about things like this in venues like this one is not in fact in sync with the whole truth. Sure, it could be.

But given the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of such TOEs that have come down the pike historically, really, what are the odds?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Meno_ wrote:But Peaceworld I totally agree with You, and the reason on a reduced level appears to be based on a difference that notes a variable state of mind which perceives the difference as res cogitans vs. Res percipio.

The perception of a plethora of choices and the unvarifiability of the outcome of only one resulting choice.The result is not always the best choice, it may even be the worst, however in situ, it is the only possible one, contextually reduced.

It is the best choice at the moment it was made by the person who made it regardless of his state of mind (i.e., cogitans vs. Res percipio). He is compelled to choose always what he considers better for himself, rendering any other choice an impossibility at that moment. Free choice therefore is an illusion. That does not mean looking back in hindsight it was the best choice because now he has more information upon which to make a more profitable choice based on the factors unique to him personally.

Meno_ wrote:There is a synthetic unity between a cognitive synthetic possibility , and a synthetic perceptual certainty. Cohesion necessitates constant evaluation backwards and forwards in a calculus of fed back continuum : like looking back positively or, negatively into the choices which contributes to the path through which the route was chosen as a perceived unity of continuum.

This is the trouble. The choices made along the way appear only continuous, not only in a backward sense of regret, but also, in the sense of.progressingly going forward.

It is not continuous, it is by leaps and bounds, which functionally are not perceived. Its just that reductively back wards the indifference is based on the will's desire to return to the basic assumption in congruence with the identity of indiscernables..

Of course we have a sense of regret at times. Of course there is a looking back in order to make a better choice the next time a similar situation presents itself. No one is disputing this meno. This does not do anything to nullify the accurate definition of determinism that I gave. I changed the topic name because we're stuck on the definition. I need people to presume temporarily that man does not have free will, so we can progress.

Meno_ wrote:Exactly, and getting away from merely attempts to establish this definitely, has been insufficient, according to Your own perception of the futility of ever recurring blocks in attaining clarity.

Ever recurring blocks? What are you talking about Meno? You are making all kinds of assumptions that don't belong. All I am establishing is that we can only choose one alternative whenever we are choosing between MEANINGFUL differences. Show me where this is false. You are trying hard to prove this author wrong, but he wasn't wrong so you can't do it. Your reasoning in an effort to prove that my definition is insufficient is completely flawed.

Meno_ wrote:Therefore, the reductive requirement toward distinguishing a difference which has been overlooked. And that difference is mirror imaged within more generally set processes: such as occurs in entropy.

There is no difference that has been overlooked. Sometimes we look back and sometimes we don't when making a decision. There is nothing reductionistic about this definition. There is no disorder or entropy by saying that when making a choice, it could only be that choice because we are compelled to move in the direction of what gives us greater satisfaction or preference. Prove to me that you can move in the direction of dissatisfaction (or lesser satisfaction) when a more preferable choice is available to you. That's the only way we will be able to stay on track. Just to remind you: this is an invariable law of our nature whether it was during prehistoric times or modern times. Natural laws don't change with time, although the environment changes with time.

Peace girl:

I'm not contesting Your thesis, admittedly only trying to modify its insubstantial basis.

Artimas wrote:Freedom implies a lack of restriction or restraint in choice of using ones will which is not the case as we are limited on multiple levels of what we may choose and why we may choose it. We are bound to environment and a state of duality in everything, this being bound is what goes against will being completely free.

By "free" will I would automatically assume; Will is free, only to its limited available choices.

That is a superficial definition of "free" will. To the extent we have available choices at our disposal does not grant us libertarian free will. It just means we have more options on the table. Yes, we have more freedom to move about, to do more things in life, but you are conflating two different definitions of "free". Throughout the book, Decline and Fall of All Evil, the author uses the phrase: "I was compelled of my own free will" to mean "I was compelled of my own desire" which is not a contradiction if you understand how the terms are being used. Similarly, using the word "free" to mean more options does not mean we have freedom of the will. We have to define words clearly in order to communicate effectively.

Artimas wrote:I do not have concrete evidence but only through correlation of what seems reasonable and logical. We have Archetypes inside of us that never cease to exist but only may be effectively managed or the lessening of influence upon ego through becoming conscious of the unconscious. I personally believe these archetypes tie into other planets, sun, moon and solar system(astrology), I believe they may have energies, vibrations and frequency all on their own as everything does that effect us as conscious individuals based on time of birth and through further planetary movement when one is alive. This would be an unconscious physical force in which is restricting as well as the unconscious restrictions we already face to completely shape self, to shape self one must remember or learn first in what they wish to represent and it them, if this is not done then one lives their life as a collection of exterior idealogy without even realizing or understanding their ego has become indoctrinated by such.

It shows as easy as day that will is not completely free, so why bother saying "free will" at all. All one has is their heart and their will, do not let them be tainted.

We are all limited by our environment, our income, our knowledge, our heredity, our culture, our predispositions, our subconscious desires and fears, etc. Regardless of the reasons for the choice, it was never a free one because we are compelled, based on all of the above which include the options available at that moment in time, to move in the direction of greater preference or satisfaction. It is impossible to move in any other direction, which means once the choice is made, it was the only choice that could ever have been made. IOW, we would get the same result if we were able to rewind the clock and repeat the same instance before making the choice.

Yeah. We're free to make a limited choice out of limited options, I agree, just stating my own wording of it to make sure I fully understand you.

A "god" who deserves worship will be humble enough to reject it; A "god" who demands worship will not be worthy of it.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

peacegirl wrote: People can agree or not agree but I am not going to defend what I know to be true mathematically, scientifically, and undeniably!

This is the part I always latch on to. It reflects what I construe to be the "objectivist mentality". And it can be in reference to all sorts of things.

But mostly two:

1] moral and political values

2] assessments of questions like this

Folks here just know that what they believe is true. And it has to be true [for them] because [mentally, emotionally and psychologically] they have already invested so much of their own rendition of "I" in it.

I already stated that there is no right or wrong or objective truth when it comes to human behavior except this hurting of others. What is a hurt? you may ask. It is someone doing something to you that you do not want done to yourself.

iambiguous wrote:I encompassed this frame of mind in what I call the "psychology of objectivism":

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".

On the other hand, I have no capacity whatsoever to demonstrate that what others claim to know about things like this in venues like this one is not in fact in sync with the whole truth. Sure, it could be.

But given the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of such TOEs that have come down the pike historically, really, what are the odds?

It is true that some ideas grow and are believed to be big truths. But...you have to separate the chaff from the wheat. Is it possible that this discovery is more than an personal truth? You are skeptical, which is fine, but you believe based on the odds that this can only be what you described in your 7 stages. I ask you to please contain your skepticism and give this knowledge half a chance. Is that asking too much?

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

Free will is real. Here there is an argument in favor of it: Think of a situation with two options. Suppose that you like both options equally. A deterministic system in such a situation halts. You can of course get out of this situation by choosing one option. Therefore you are free.

bahman wrote:Free will is real. Here there is an argument in favor of it: Think of a situation with two options. Suppose that you like both options equally. A deterministic system in such a situation halts. You can of course get out of this situation by choosing one option. Therefore you are free.

Except the choice/option from the beginning has been restricted or is lead to by something outside of self, this is not freedom, there are boundaries. It's only variety of limited options.. Free to pick, out of limited choice. So why call it free will when it is just will. If there is "to an extent" then there is a wall.

A "god" who deserves worship will be humble enough to reject it; A "god" who demands worship will not be worthy of it.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

bahman wrote:Free will is real. Here there is an argument in favor of it: Think of a situation with two options. Suppose that you like both options equally. A deterministic system in such a situation halts. You can of course get out of this situation by choosing one option. Therefore you are free.

It doesn’t halt at all. It would be like choosing between two identical options, or A and A. If you see ten bags of identical popcorn on a shelf, most people would choose one. This does not prove free will because whatever choice is made is in the direction of greater satisfaction even if not choosing any is the preferred option.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

bahman wrote:Free will is real. Here there is an argument in favor of it: Think of a situation with two options. Suppose that you like both options equally. A deterministic system in such a situation halts. You can of course get out of this situation by choosing one option. Therefore you are free.

Except the choice/option from the beginning has been restricted or is lead to by something outside of self, this is not freedom, there are boundaries. It's only variety of limited options.. Free to pick, out of limited choice. So why call it free will when it is just will. If there is "to an extent" then there is a wall.

Freedom in having options is different from free will. Of course we always are restricted to limited set of options. We however are free to choose the option that we want among set of available set of options regardless of our like/dislike, external force, etc.

bahman wrote:Free will is real. Here there is an argument in favor of it: Think of a situation with two options. Suppose that you like both options equally. A deterministic system in such a situation halts. You can of course get out of this situation by choosing one option. Therefore you are free.

It doesn’t halt at all. It would be like choosing between two identical options, or A and A. If you see ten bags of identical popcorn on a shelf, most people would choose one. This does not prove free will because whatever choice is made is in the direction of greater satisfaction even if not choosing any is the preferred option.

It does halt. For a free agent there is even a delay between realizing the options and choosing one option in the case one wants options equally. The example of identical option is of course is not relevant since choosing is indifferent.

If you see ten bags of identical popcorn on a shelf, most people would choose one.

this is a popcornological impossibility. the law of identity only holds for notational and propositional logic, not for things extended in space/time. there can be no two identical things in space/time. just sayin'.

If you see ten bags of identical popcorn on a shelf, most people would choose one.

this is a popcornological impossibility. the law of identity only holds for notational and propositional logic, not for things extended in space/time. there can be no two identical things in space/time. just sayin'.

You’re splitting hairs. For the purposes of my example that when two things are virtually identical, this does nothing to prove we have free will.

Last edited by peacegirl on Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

bahman wrote:Free will is real. Here there is an argument in favor of it: Think of a situation with two options. Suppose that you like both options equally. A deterministic system in such a situation halts. You can of course get out of this situation by choosing one option. Therefore you are free.

It doesn’t halt at all. It would be like choosing between two identical options, or A and A. If you see ten bags of identical popcorn on a shelf, most people would choose one. This does not prove free will because whatever choice is made is in the direction of greater satisfaction even if not choosing any is the preferred option.

It does halt. For a free agent there is even a delay between realizing the options and choosing one option in the case one wants options equally. The example of identical option is of course is not relevant since choosing is indifferent.

But why choose popcorn, the choice in itself is limited.. One has obviously developed the taste for popcorn, (preference), through genes and environment, these are limitations. Both objectively and subjectively. Why does one choose popcorn? Then it becomes even narrower, well what kind of popcorn? Caramel? Cheese? Butter? Sure options are available but options are limited in themselves by development of preference through genetics and environment.

The reason I take a position where I defend against free will (by definition) in an objective/literal sense is due to it being also genetics, taste buds. Did you pick your likes and dislikes? No? You simply discovered them and have the limited option of continuing or discontinuing usage of whatever said preference is. I did not have a choice in becoming, becoming had a choice in me, (trial and error in a sense, selection.)

It is both objective and subjective limitation of "free" will. As I believe it was Ben, who said a long time ago, "we have a will but it isn't a free one"

Last edited by Artimas on Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A "god" who deserves worship will be humble enough to reject it; A "god" who demands worship will not be worthy of it.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

peacegirl wrote:It doesn’t halt at all. It would be like choosing between two identical options, or A and A. If you see ten bags of identical popcorn on a shelf, most people would choose one. This does not prove free will because whatever choice is made is in the direction of greater satisfaction even if not choosing any is the preferred option.

It does halt. For a free agent there is even a delay between realizing the options and choosing one option in the case one wants options equally. The example of identical option is of course is not relevant since choosing is indifferent.

But why choose popcorn, the choice in itself is limited.. One has obviously developed the taste for popcorn, (preference), through genes and environment, these are limitations. Both objectively and subjectively. Why does one choose popcorn? Then it becomes even narrower, well what kind of popcorn? Caramel? Cheese? Butter? Sure options are available but options are limited in themselves by development of preference through genetics and environment.

The reason I take a position where I defend against free will (bycdefinition) in an objective/literal sense is due to it being also genetics, taste buds. Did you pick your likes and dislikes? No? You simply discovered them and have the limited option of continuing or discontinuing usage of whatever said preference is. I did not have a choice in becoming, becoming had a choice in me, (trial and error in a sense, selection.)

It is both objective and subjective limitation of "free" will. As I believe it was Ben, who said a long time ago, "we have a will but it isn't a free one"

Genetics, environment, experiences, etc. determine options. Our discussion in here is not about options but how do we act in a situation since we accept that options are available.

Genetics, environment, experiences, etc. determine options. Our discussion in here is not about options but how do we act in a situation since we accept that options are available.

Based off of preference.

Value of the "greater good", one can value options as a whole (try anything once mentality) and try something "new", the option is available, their liking that option however is not their choice, thus choice becomes about preference of which stems from environment and genetics. Unless one likes to make the choice of which they do not prefer, redundantly, leading ultimately to misery and I feel is a path of resistance, Humanity instinctively chooses comfort if and when it is available because it is common sense to choose the state of which lessens agony instead of one which enhances it. The diversity of preference and self is ultimately the only way evolution can work for it leads to new correlations of old information.

By good I mean the subjective sense.

If both are identical bags, inspection then occurs of if it is true, if it turns out to be truth that indeed both bags are identical and there is no lesser then the option no longer matters as a whole between the two, they may even take both if that option is available. It is a choice based off of comfort which may manifest as greed as well when ego is active and unchecked, this is obvious due to how society is right now where people have taken comfort to an extreme and do not even bother educating oneself for truth is discomfort.

A "god" who deserves worship will be humble enough to reject it; A "god" who demands worship will not be worthy of it.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Genetics, environment, experiences, etc. determine options. Our discussion in here is not about options but how do we act in a situation since we accept that options are available.

Based off of preference.

Value of the "greater good", one can value options as a whole (try anything once mentality) and try something "new", the option is available, their liking that option however is not their choice, thus choice becomes about preference of which stems from environment and genetics. Unless one likes to make the choice of which they do not prefer, redundantly, leading ultimately to misery and I feel is a path of resistance, Humanity instinctively chooses comfort if and when it is available because it is common sense to choose the state of which lessens agony instead of one which enhances it. The diversity of preference and self is ultimately the only way evolution can work for it leads to new correlations of old information.

By good I mean the subjective sense.

If both are identical bags, inspection then occurs of if it is true, if it turns out to be truth that indeed both bags are identical and there is no lesser then the option no longer matters as a whole between the two, they may even take both if that option is available. It is a choice based off of comfort which may manifest as greed as well when ego is active and unchecked, this is obvious due to how society is right now where people have taken comfort to an extreme and do not even bother educating oneself for truth is discomfort.

I am not talking about identical bags. I am talking about two different options which are just equally liked. Think of a situation that you want to buy ice cream and you like chocolate and vanilla ice cream equally. Can you choose one of the ice cream? Of course you can. What I am arguing is that a deterministic system cannot resolve such a situation and halts permanently. You also halt in such a situation temporarily but you eventually pick up one of the ice cream. So you are not a deterministic system and instead free.

Genetics, environment, experiences, etc. determine options. Our discussion in here is not about options but how do we act in a situation since we accept that options are available.

Based off of preference.

Value of the "greater good", one can value options as a whole (try anything once mentality) and try something "new", the option is available, their liking that option however is not their choice, thus choice becomes about preference of which stems from environment and genetics. Unless one likes to make the choice of which they do not prefer, redundantly, leading ultimately to misery and I feel is a path of resistance, Humanity instinctively chooses comfort if and when it is available because it is common sense to choose the state of which lessens agony instead of one which enhances it. The diversity of preference and self is ultimately the only way evolution can work for it leads to new correlations of old information.

By good I mean the subjective sense.

If both are identical bags, inspection then occurs of if it is true, if it turns out to be truth that indeed both bags are identical and there is no lesser then the option no longer matters as a whole between the two, they may even take both if that option is available. It is a choice based off of comfort which may manifest as greed as well when ego is active and unchecked, this is obvious due to how society is right now where people have taken comfort to an extreme and do not even bother educating oneself for truth is discomfort.

I am not talking about identical bags. I am talking about two different options which are just equally liked. Think of a situation that you want to buy ice cream and you like chocolate and vanilla ice cream equally. Can you choose one of the ice cream? Of course you can. What I am arguing is that a deterministic system cannot resolve such a situation and halts permanently. You also halt in such a situation temporarily but you eventually pick up one of the ice cream. So you are not a deterministic system and instead free.

Is that not dependent upon mood or belief of what could be the "right" choice of which one will return a greater satisfaction?

When I am picking between donuts or cookies (I love both) I take into account what mood I am in, not so much a struggle of not being able to choose due to liking them both equally. Or how about how I love Italian food but also love Mexican food, mood plays a role in determining which one we choose and which will be "more fulfilling" based on what makes one salivate more in the present moment.

A "god" who deserves worship will be humble enough to reject it; A "god" who demands worship will not be worthy of it.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Value of the "greater good", one can value options as a whole (try anything once mentality) and try something "new", the option is available, their liking that option however is not their choice, thus choice becomes about preference of which stems from environment and genetics. Unless one likes to make the choice of which they do not prefer, redundantly, leading ultimately to misery and I feel is a path of resistance, Humanity instinctively chooses comfort if and when it is available because it is common sense to choose the state of which lessens agony instead of one which enhances it. The diversity of preference and self is ultimately the only way evolution can work for it leads to new correlations of old information.

By good I mean the subjective sense.

If both are identical bags, inspection then occurs of if it is true, if it turns out to be truth that indeed both bags are identical and there is no lesser then the option no longer matters as a whole between the two, they may even take both if that option is available. It is a choice based off of comfort which may manifest as greed as well when ego is active and unchecked, this is obvious due to how society is right now where people have taken comfort to an extreme and do not even bother educating oneself for truth is discomfort.

I am not talking about identical bags. I am talking about two different options which are just equally liked. Think of a situation that you want to buy ice cream and you like chocolate and vanilla ice cream equally. Can you choose one of the ice cream? Of course you can. What I am arguing is that a deterministic system cannot resolve such a situation and halts permanently. You also halt in such a situation temporarily but you eventually pick up one of the ice cream. So you are not a deterministic system and instead free.

Is that not dependent upon mood or belief of what could be the "right" choice of which one will return a greater satisfaction?

When I am picking between donuts or cookies (I love both) I take into account what mood I am in, not so much a struggle of not being able to choose due to liking them both equally. Or how about how I love Italian food but also love Mexican food, mood plays a role in determining which one we choose and which will be "more fulfilling" based on what makes one salivate more in the present moment.

You might be in a mood to have cookies but think that it makes you fat so you believe that it is better to go with donuts. You want both options equally at the end when you consider all circumstances. This is a situation that mood or belief alone cannot move you to pick up the option you want so you have to decide freely.